tv House Armed Services on South Asia Strategy - Part 2 CSPAN October 6, 2017 1:15am-3:25am EDT
that's true for women, minorities. the bars are different. we experience that all the time. we experienced that the last eight years. i joked on the campaign trail the bar just kept moving. you meet it and then the park would change. you we are seeing that now. , quitere seeing that now frankly. --t bar is [applause] it is going places. it is amazing to watch. >> michelle obama sitting down with shonda rimes. at can watch the interview the pennsylvania conference for women in philadelphia saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. next, defense secretary james mattis and joints chiefs of staff chair testifying on
president trump's new military strategy in afghanistan. this house armed services committee is just two hours. >> one of the primary concerns i would like each of you to address are the rules of engagement in afghanistan. during the previous administration, i introduced a resolution calling to the revision under operation resident support in afghanistan in an effort to succeed where
combatants face. what are the standard rules of engagement for efforts in afghanistan? includedhe old rules both rules of engagement and operating principles, including a requirement for proximity of the enemy to be engaged by our air forces. president trump has told me that i have the authority to change that, so i removed proximity and opens the itself enemy whenever they are found to nato air support under the nato hold plant. the first thing is, we have unleashed that. we have had a reduction in the number of deaths by innocent people has a result of coalition operations, not taliban. my point is, we will take every
humanly possible step to protect the innocent, but the rules itself permit be engaged forces to bring air support furthermore by extending the -- which units are being advised. veryans they had a convoluted way to get that air support. it was an organizational problem. that has been removed, as well. i appreciate the complex situation of organizational and rules. secretary, we want to succeed in afghanistan and you clearly eliminated or identified the situation, that we need to eliminate safe havens abroad to defend families at home. at the same time, i support your
efforts for more troops, but we have increased deployments, meaning fewer units at home for contingencies. we have also had the recent extended loss of two destroyers. and the necessary support for this -- for devastating hurricanes, the stress on the military is ever increasing. facecan we do to help you of threats facing our country? >> i think the most important thing is that we get budget stability and certainty because without that, we cannot adjust our forces and get predictability into our budgets that permit us to get the best bang for our buck. we are going into the ninth year with a continuing resolution. i cannot make new starts under that, even if the cyber domain
or space to main need us to do new things. the most important thing is to make certain that the congress act together to relieve us of the budget control act and we get creditability in our funding. >> i am grateful for the leadership of speaker paul ryan and diane black. additionally, mr. secretary is the former cochair of the caucus , and i appreciate your visit to new delhi. keeping that in mind, how can we balance our-- cooperation with india and pakistan has a level of resentment? >> the question you are bringing up is exactly why i was in new delhi last week.
their national security adviser and ministry of defense welcomed me. the economy is picking up. in my portfolio, we now have a strategic convergence of two natural partners, the two largest democracies in the world and india has been generous over many years to afghanistan. they have been the victim of terrorism, so i don't need to go talk about the terror threat with them. we have many areas where we are natural partners with one another and we are deepening and widening the military relationship with them. strategy,an exclusive exclusive of anyone, any nation that wants to be a part of this counterterror effort in south asia can sign up. pakistan need not think this is exclusive of them. it is open to any nation that wants to move against terrorism and remove this threat to all
civilized nations. >> thank you very much. andhank you, mr. chairman mr. secretary for being here. serviceu to -- for your to our country. on donald trump's august 24 heech, the president stated lifted restrictions placed on our war fighters. it'sw you understand critical congress be kept appraised of the operation outcome as a result of these changes so we can conduct federal oversight. can you define what these restrictions are that have been lifted and which authorities have been extended and which result -- what results have you seen since the changes have been made thus far? nato plan had certain
objectives in mind. it is organized to bring the afghan army into a stronger position and in some cases, we were not giving that army the high ground. in other words, having fought in the mountains, it is uncomfortable when the enemy is above you. we did not give the young afghan boys the sense they had the high ground when they were fighting against this enemy that the nato air support could have given them. today, i can bring that air support to them. we have to reorganize our advisors because those units with nato and american advisers win and those without them do not win. we will bring that air support to bear and we are no longer bound by the need for proximity to our forces. enemy, you find our can put the pressure from the
air support on them. be ind to be we had to contact with the enemy. at the same time, we don't want this to be misinterpreted into a laissez-faire use of fire support when we are fighting wars where the enemy intentionally hides among innocent. it is aligned with our efforts to do everything to prevent death or injury of innocent people, women, children, villages, this sort of thing. >> are there other things you can identify now? >> the other restrictions are basically bringing this fire support to bear, whether through proximity or with those units. we were only advising under what i inherited down to the core level. we are now going down to the brigade level and the next level down is that the tally level.
-- battalion level. these are the forces that move against the animate. the forces that -- against the enemy. the forces that win have nato and u.s. advisors with them. our advisors made it clear why we have problems with other forces. we will solve that. >> thank you. while the afghan government is determined to maintain security and stability, they are also continuing with a clash of cultures in the region, a coalition of our nations to address regional security challenges. i understand you are in india and spoke with congressman wilson. they pledged $3 million for development progress -- projects to train officers. how will this engagement enhanced security in the region?
how will you leverage relationships like this to develop an effective coalition strategy to inject legitimacy and confidence to the afghan government, people, and original? partners? how do you intend to persuade toistan to take more action create support and refuge for the taliban and network? >> let me take the second question first. on pakistan, what you will see is 39 nations all in the nato campaign, working together to lay out what we need pakistan to do, as well as in the u.s. government, secretary of treasury, secretary of state, the defense department, and we lay out what it needs we need pakistan to do and we need to use the whole of government
international effort to align basically the-- benefits and the penalties if they are not done. pakistan has lost more troops in this fight than nearly any country out there. at the same time, there has been some parsing out where terrorists have been allowed safe havens. we are allowed to change that behavior and do it firmly. based on a visit of chief of kabul,aff to couple, -- we have a sense of optimism out of the afghan government. i am in a show me state right now, but we are showing our diplomatic partners to make the change that impacts the best interest. as far as getting confidence with the afghan people and
military and how we make it work, i will ask the chairman to say a few words on this. the bottom line is, if you look at the largest political assemblage of their culture, it is overwhelming how much of the population once the nato -- wants the nato alliance to stick with them. when you add countries like india, who have been very generous, but even more development support, there are ways to build the confidence of the people that have been tormented ever since the soviet invasion by violence. -- chairman. >> the conditions-based approach gives them that. in recent polling, about 80% of the people reject the taliban,
70% have confidence in the afghan security forces, and roughly the same numbers as to,etary mattis alluded roughly the same numbers welcome a coalition presence. the commitment the international community -- this is not just a strategy of the united states. nato has the same approach. i think that is having a profound effect on the people,gy of the afghan which we felt was a source of strength in the campaign. >> thank you both. >> secretary mattis, thank you for your solid and extort. leadership. the nation is fortunate you accepted these assignments. a lot of my questions have been i wantnd answered, but to go back to what a couple my colleagues said rigorously about pakistan. demonstratinge
the right approach and expressing willingness to help, but we have seen this before. we have been disappointed and sometimes they do a little bit and make it sound like it is a lot. an openize we are also setting. what can i find about this being a false start and pressure them to cooperate? without them, we have a more difficult time in afghanistan. the reason we did a regional approach in the beginning was so we did not start with afghanistan, put together a great plan and say, now we have to add in variables. we started with india, to iran, central asia, and it down into afghanistan came at as a geographically centralized problem that was informed the
others. -- by the others. there is an increasing level of discontent in the world with any country that supports terrorism for any reason. it has taken a while for some countries to come on board. what you look at what secretary tillerson has put together in terms of beating the isis coalition, 69 countries right league,s the arab european union, interpol, it is clear what isis has done is created its own antibodies. by doing that, there is more of a concern about the spread of terrorism. as we work this problem with pakistan as pakistan is moved against the border areas in the last six months, losing troops and pushing against some of the border passes to give access into afghanistan, i think we are
in a position now where we can be more compelling. this is going to be one step at a time. basicallyng to remain focused on this effort. we are not going to back off and it will start with secretaries coming out of washington and the national security staff members going into pakistan followed by the secretary of state. i will go in and we have secretary stoltenberg's support for this in his advocacy as the general of nato. we will build this up in an international way with the whole of u.s. government argument for is to work in their own best interest and hours. , secretary mattis, and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you both for being here. i want to endorse mr. jones'
comments that i feel like we should have the opportunity to debate an authorization for use of military force. it has been too many years. i have been here 10 years and we have had these hearings over and over again. we have many new members of congress, as well. with the new administration, a new effort not necessarily as different, but we need a chance to debate this and recommit or not to what you are doing. theso wanted to address regional approach you are taking. we have had some conversation about pakistan, but there has isn reporting that russia engaged in finding ways to support the taliban, iran, as well. i would like your thoughts about how that is company getting your efforts there. >> any effort to support a violent group like the taliban,
until they renounce terrorism, support for them is not in russia's best interest, not in iran's best interest, certainly not in afghanistan people's best interest, and contrary to the nato campaign and national agreements in the u.n. that put us there in the first place. think this is difficult to discern why they would do something that is not in their best interest. i am not ready to say precisely what it is. i want to see more evidence about how deep the support is. it is hard to believe iran had their diplomats killed by taliban. russia has had enough problems coming out of terrorism in south-central asia. this doesn't make sense, but the world doesn't always make sense. we will figure it out and illuminate it to get a change in behavior. >> you have seen some evidence
without having a sense of what level of it goes. >> we have seen some. definition on what is coming out of russia. i can't figure it out. it doesn't make sense, but we are looking at it very carefully. out of iran, it has been a low-level intermittent support for taliban, mostly financial. some weapons. it is iran doing what it usually does in trying to create chaos. >> would you like to comment? >> congresswoman, what we have seen, we have clear indications of communications. in regard to the iranians, there is a clear degree of support. on russia, we don't have clear support for the taliban. >> i yield back. >> good to see you again and
thank you for being here. i want to thank you for your work since you have been secretary. you have been diligent in ensuring this committee is informed, working with members, but beyond that, with the classified briefings you have held for the whole house, made certain that other members here your message. that helps us because what we have learned, we take to other members. but your message is repealing sequestration and i want to appreciate that you have done that week as it is making a big difference. thank you for being here today. according to the 2016 survey concerning opium cultivation and production in afghanistan, the cultivation in afghanistan in 2016 increased by 10%. all regions experienced an increase last year.
additionally, aside from a drop between 2014 and 2015, the data shows steady growth in opium cultivation between 1994 and 2016. if you look at the historical levels from 2001 to where we are today, it has roughly doubled. we have seen it with less than half before 2001. i know that is unacceptable. i'm certain you believe that is unacceptable. it has an impact on counterterrorism because it includes funding, counter narcotics efforts, lessons the funds available to terrorists, and breeds corruption in the afghan government and military. we know how to address this. we address crops, distribution, the infrastructure for the narcotic trade looking at your traditional strategy in south
asia, how do you see this strategy including an effort to affect the opiate and narcotic trade? >> great question. both the counter finance aspects of the strategy and the counter corruption are linked directly to the counter narcotics campaign. we watched as we drew down too fast too early, we watched the taliban search as the taliban surged, we watched the poppy surge right along with it. there is no surprise here. the intelligence committee warned us about this, so it was what we were told what happened. we are going to go after the counter narcotics refineries that transportation nodes, the aars, where they barter. that is where they accrue their
taxation cash off the tray. it is not from the little guy down there who is farming this crop of poppies. isare going to look at where it help the taliban and fight it in that direction rather than going in a big way after the farmers themselves. there is a way to cut this thing and reduce it by targeting the right locations and the right that in the drug trade will also undercut the taliban's fund-raising. we dealt with this issue a lot and we have had some success. in looking at this issue, the committee is aware there are impediments. are there interagency departments issues that we need to address to make sure the strategy is and limited? -- implemented?
what do you see as your impediments? >what are the areas that are you and how can we help you? >> having the right numbers of drug enforcement agents to advise the afghan forces, they have a major crimes task force there. law enforcement officials that can if ice them to arrest and protect evidence and prosecute that has showed good value in the past. also to make sure the justice system continues to mature, as well. painting you would like to add to that on the tools you need? > i know you have had difficulties in achieving these goals. >> because it touches the
taliban and counter financing toort is something we need invest in and integrate and, i don't sense i have missing authorities here. if i find them, i will come see you and tell you what i need. i have made a note that i need to look at it. that,, i haven't heard but i haven't asked the specific question. i need to do so before i answer you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you have set a couple times in this hearing that war is a matter of will and the taliban have to understand that there is an impeccable will on our side to continue this fight and see it through until we achieve our goals. convince me that our will is more impeccable then there's going forward. theirs going forward.
>> of course, i am not alone in this fight, sir. i have no doubt they have the troops with willingness to endure danger and discomfort in defense of this country and this town and new york city that were attacked by terrorists operating out of this very area we are fighting in. but you bring up a good point. something you mentioned earlier. -- the u.s.t to be congress has got to embrace this as our fight. we are all in this. changes ofo hear any strategy, open the door and have you look at it so you can see finds asinspector something you admire.
i have dealt with this kind of enemy since 1979. i do not patronize them. when they say girls don't go to school, you will not talk them out of it. we will have to confront this the way generations of americans confronted other threats, whether militarism, fascism, or communism. >> let me ask you a follow-up question. he talked about some of our goals, afghanistan never be used to plan or carry out attacks against the united states of america. want to stakeholders like the taliban to work with the national government and the political process. he also said the taliban have to understand you cannot kill their way to power. killould agree we cannot our way to these goals and, so what is going to happen for the conditionsaccept our
, short of us killing all of them? >> i think it's got to be, they recognize they will not gain power. at the point of a gun. the afghan security forces are capable of defeating them. in there, whendd we talk about will, the secretary touched on something important. will, it the taliban is the taliban will against afghan forces. the afghan forces had 16,000 soldiers killed and they stayed in the fight. -- they have proved incredibly resilient. they have had battlefield shortfalls, and we have identified those. to address their tactical abilities, down to their small unit levels. at the end of the day, this is a clash of wills.
people and afghan there are some small portion of the afghan people that want to resort to violence to push forward their will. it is not just the afghan government and a small minority, it is the afghan government and $1 trillion in taxpayer support, 10,000 service members, nato allies, support from there is countries as well. we are in our 16th year with no end in sight and i am having a hard time explaining to my constituents what the game changer is that i'm hearing today that will make this different going forward. i mean no disrespect, i'm just not hearing it. congress has suffered from a lack of oversight and a lack of questions asked. >> short, i think it is a fair
question. -- sure, i think it is a fair question. i recommended we stayed because groups, andhat 21 the consequences of not keeping pressure on them. of what is different, people talk about 16 years. years, wethose 16 were in the lead and in the fight. the past two years, it has been the afghan forces in the lead. they did not have adequate force capabilities to deal with the taliban. this doesn't address 16 years of us eating in the fight. this is to years of the taliban fighting two years of afghan security forces. i think that is important that this is designed to be fiscally,
militarily, and politically sustainable over time. it will require a u.s. presence term, that the short in the long term, it is about leveraging the 300,000 afghan forces we have grown over the past 16 years which we have just adequately supported in the last year or two. >> thank you board for what you do to protect our countries and allies. the president is to be commended when he and his mission speech, talked about pakistan and how pakistan needs to be more consistent in promoting stability in the region. secretary mattis, you address that strongly in your comments earlier. i would like to follow up on that. if pakistan does not follow through and be a better promoter of promoting stability? >> sir, we have an enormously
powerful number of options there. right now, i would like to think we would be successful, but you ask a good question because we don't want a transient or temporary change, and things go back to a bad way. i think that right now, with the growing consensus against terrorism, they will find themselves diplomatically isolated, economically in countries trouble as that are damaged by this terrorism coming out of their say enough is enough and take steps, there is an awful lot of advantage to pakistan to coming online with the international immunity. we have to state focused their, -- we have to stay focused but if they choose to
go a different direction. we need to try one more time to make a strategy work through the pakistanis and if our best efforts fail, president trump is prepared to take whatever steps are necessary. you, howther one of will or how it should our defense relationship with india change? and was in india last week was very well received by prime minister modi, the minister of defense, national security advisor, we have a strategic convergence between the worlds two biggest democracies and this is a once in a generation opportunity, with shared interests, to deepen and broaden our defense relationship, but also our economic relationship. i think our political relationship can be tightened together.
they are a force for stability in south asia. they are a force for stability in the indo specific region -- indo pacific region. they are coming into their own economically. there is an opportunity here that we have not experienced in inades to tie us together terms of a broadened level of cooperation and natural alignment with each other's interests. >> as a follow on to that, do you have anything you are ready today to announce would designate specifically that we would be doing that we haven't done in the past with india? >> there are a number of things in motion right now and decisions will be coming very soon. we are both working to turn these big words and do right intoal realities --
pragmatic realities. i am optimistic. it is not like we have to convince them terrorism is a threat. i don't have to convince them we have nefarious designs on the indo pacific area. doing in things we are terms of their support in afghanistan, development funding. they have been generous for many years and they have achieved a degree of affection by the afghan people as a result. they intend to continue this effort and product it. they are providing training for afghan military officers and ncos at their schools. they are willing to do rehabilitation of soviet era equipment until we are able to replace it with american. it will take years to do it properly. they need to maintain --
helicopters, for example. they have been providing training for afghan army doctors and medics in the field. so the army is able to take casualties and better sustain themselves, that sort of thing. it really is a very holistic approach india is taking. boots one i left off the ground because of the complexity that would bring to pakistan. we are trying to make this an inclusive strategy and we don't want them to get a sense we are -- sense they are vulnerable to indian army people from their western flank. it is not necessary. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary mattis, i wanted to ask you about the state department and the programs in afghanistan now. how do funding cuts to the department has proposed by the
administration affect the overall mission there? there? i know you have been outspoken about diplomacy and other programs that support the mission. >> right now, what we are trying to do is get a lot more development aid from the international community, separate and distinct from what we are doing to lower the demand what we are doing on the taxpayer. we are trying to raise money by our allies to carry more of a commitment on the military side. i am not certain what the cuts id's budget asa far as afghanistan. i will get back to you to determine that and come back to you with an informed answer. >> they give very much. -- thank you very much. i wanted to ask you about
general john socko. he said that in march, it is a good idea to reevaluate our efforts in afghanistan and find out what is working and what is not. ben a smart first step would -- one smart first step would be the reconstruction efforts. their top andack worst-performing projects so they know where to invest further and where to cut losses. that is his quote. i didn't know if you agreed with his proposal and if so, has it been implement it in any way? >> i do agree with what he said about was working and what not. we have done a failure analysis that went into this issue. the chairman talked with his backgrounds as a nato commander you, when iell
heard the budget was being reduced, secretary tillerson and i sat down the next day. we spoke about how we would align dod and the os and determine what our priorities and a violation of our funding lines, make sure we were talking ourach other to align policy efforts. with a very strong partnership to make sure -- we probably should have been doing this anyway, but to make sure what we were doing was collaborative with one another in any part of the world we were both operating. that me pass it to the chairman. it to thepass chairman. >> did it in form the strategy moving forward? they partnered with us. secretary mattis asterisk to do
a failure analysis -- asked us to do a failure analysis, one of ,he key partners we brought in general socko came in and he was very much involved and informed by the work we have done not only in regard to projects as you have talked about, but they have done good work on resource transparency and account ability and what worked and it worked in our advisory effort. they did some work on what worked and didn't work between the state department and department of fed. i feel confident in saying is very much a part of the recommendations we made to secretary mattis and the president. report on that, the july
included a increase and a 2% increase from the same period last year. what is the uptick in the security tell us about the security overall and how do we shape the strategy going forward? just tell you, i don't think any less are satisfied with how security in afghanistan has been in 2016 and 2070. but so far, 2017 is slightly better than 2016. we focused on those areas where they have fallen short of the mark, specifically the ability to deliver aviation support and provide advisors to the right level of formations. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for joining us today and for your service. the u.s.to refer to
defense strategy on the war in afghanistan and the president noted in his address that india continues to be an important strategic economic partner and i agree with that. i had an opportunity to visit with the foreign secretary in india. i know you returned from the region there speaking with president modi and others and that your effort and direction there with dealing with india will be steady engagement, which i think is spot on. i am in favor of joint naval exercises and expanded defense trade. but in relation to what is happening in the region, i'm more concerned about a stable afghanistan and securing the hard-fought gains we have had there. you noted in reference to terrorist safe havens of their in the region, global leaders india and the united states worked together to eradicate this scourge and i am in
agreement, that i wanted to get your perspective. what can india do to help root out or reduce terrorist safe havens in that region? he talked about their engagement, but what can they do in a broader sense in helping with the terrorist safe havens happening throughout the region? india has an outsized role to play because of its size. as rocky a democracy as we are, frankly. it gives people hope that their voice can be heard and opportunity can be passed broadly and not to a corrupt few. their example is important. are looking at the strategic convergence as an opportunity for steady engagements. we have to do pragmatic things together. in this regard, if there is
anyway for pakistan and india to and their border to trade great economic advantage to both countries, it would be a big help across the stability can follow economics as much as stability can need to economics. openur concern is that you the border to one thing and you get something else, so there has to be some trust building between those two nations. could probablyt be in south asia, one of the key enablers to getting trade going across all those borders. afghanistan, pakistan and india. >> thank you. i wanted to follow up on the same lines as terrorist safe havens. you talked about the new
strategy calling for expanded u.s. forces to target terrorists in the criminal networks that operate in afghanistan. the president said he agreed and we ought to have a policy to make sure there is nowhere to hide and no place beyond the reach of american light and american arms. i wanted to get you to elaborate a little more on what you see the expanded authority specifically needing to be, and what it means in a combat sense and give us examples of what is not happening now but could happen under expanded authority and how the advise and assist versus thes now future. have you seen any positive changes resulting from this transition through this change, and there -- will there be any more changes necessary to be implemented? gen. mumford: let me start with the changes, because i think this is one of the more significant ones. only at theiding
core level, that is the general officer level. those are not the organizations that are in the fight every day. below is were decisive action was taking place and we didn't have advisers there. even though we had some aviation capability, some reconnaissance capability, it wasn't being delivered to those afghan units that were most relevant in the fight. because we didn't have the authority to put advisers on that level. one of the more significant changes in authority is the level at which we advise and assist. morewill make us effective. also, broadly speaking, without going into rules of engagement in an unclassified venue, there are no individuals. there are no groups that threaten the afghan government, threaten u.s. forces, threaten our mission or threatened the coalition that general mickelson is not have the ability to
prosecute. >> i yield back. question for secretary mattis. in your opinion, is iran compliant with jcpoa. sec. mattis: i believe they fundamentally are. there were some areas where they were not temporarily in that , but overall, our intelligence community believes they have been compliant and the iea also says some. >> will you be recommending to president trump that we continue cpoa to through the j maintain -- contain iran's nuclear capability? sec. mattis: we have two issues, one is the jcp away and one congress passed. butthose two are distinct
integral with each other. as you look at what the congress has laid out, a somewhat different definition of what is in our best interest, and need to look at these distinct but integral issues the way the president has direct did. >> -- directed. >> if there is to be any change in our status of the jcpoa, especially if it involves the sanctions against iran outside of jcpoa, will you inform and talk to us because i'm only -- sanctionsny voted for with an understanding they would not be linked. this would: i think probably be most appropriate by the secretary of state and i would follow him appear. -- up hear.
and the secretary of state have the lead on that, but once a decision is made i will be in on the decision. i will give input, of course. i will always be willing to come up and talk in here or in private. >> thank you, i yield back. chairman and mr. mr. secretary, general dunford. when we look back on the history ofthe vietnam war in august 1969, president nixon ordered immunization program and a as the army ofal south vietnam gains capability, in 1972 bringt the north vietnamese to the didtiating table, so he operation linebacker two, which was a massive bombing campaign late name -- 1972 of north
vietnam. he brought them to the table, and negotiated a peace agreement that extricated the united states from the war in vietnam. today,ok at afghanistan there actually is a better -- state, in state -- end there are areas in afghanistan, particularly rural areas where they put -- prefer the taliban .o the government of kabul like the north vietnamese, the taliban don't feel like they are making gains, so there is no need to come to the negotiating table. this new strategy is designed to increase pressure to bring them to the negotiating table. at least that would be a byproduct of it.
what i see is a change of the rules of engagement when you talk about air support, which is vital. we are placing up with 3000 troops. is that going to bring the taliban to the negotiating table? sec. mattis: in the past, we have not had over 300,000 troops who for all of their challenges have stood in the field and kept the taliban from doing what they today, whicho even is take the provincial and district centers. so we now have the advantage of d force, but we need to get the advisers down to the level where they bring nato intel support, nato air support and broader artillery support to them. , congressman, but i think the strategy of four
r's, regional first, deal with the safe havens, get more support, realign our forces so we get down to the tactical level is to reinforce them with enough to get them to the level to make the difference and then reconciliation. there is also an s. it is four r's, plus an s. it is sustain this effort. dr.member sitting behind perry when he testified on capitol hill that it was never going to end the killing on the .almatian coast the international community stuck with that effort. how many times we read in the air -- newspaper about the murder of innocent people in kosovo and bosnia. we still have a couple hundred troops in their? yes we do. the international
community sustains this, i am confident it could throw the enemy on the back foot and give the afghan people to pull it together. dunford or secretary mattis, if i understand right, the significant -- the rules of engagement in the prior administration, i guess that unless -- in terms of the -- i think youid referenced contacting and being in contact with the taliban but unless they showed harmful we didn'tu.s. forces, engage them. provincial capital was falling, they could be engaged. if i understand a fundamental change in the rules of engagement, it is that clearly the taliban are in existential threat to the afghan government,
that we are there to support and if, in fact, afghan security forces in and of themselves are in contact with the taliban, that we will provide close air support when reasonable. is that a correct interpretation of the current rules of engagement? sec. mattis: not completely. one time we could not help the afghan forces unless they were in extremis. not here get, i don't know why it happened, and then eventually, that was rescinded, but they still had to be in proximity. they basically had to be in contact. today, wherever we find the terrorists, anyone trying to throw the nato plan off, trying to attack the afghan people or government, then we can go after them. always the caveat that we want to make every effort to not kill women and children and innocent people. -- i thinkd: just to
there is the reinforcement point. there are two things that have changed. in the past, we were only providing advice at the senior speciald afghan operation forces. the only aviation support we could provide was when we had advisers that could actually control the air support. so the large number of afghan conventional forces, the preponderance of those forces about, they could not receive close air support because we didn't have advisors. that is the big difference. the other thing that has changed is now, any individual or group that threatens the afghan government or mission coalition forces or u.s. forces, obviously, can be in gauged. and the condition -- engaged. the specifics are not limited to specific gauge mints or time.
an enemy and we know they are going to threaten -- threaten the afghan government or people, we have the make a decision. that is the fundamental difference. >> mr. moulton? mr. moulton: thank you, gentlemen for your considered service to the country. my key heres really and it comes back to a question we heard from senator mccain on the other side of the hill, which is, how really will this be different? we have talked about some of the details, but as we discussedd on this committee before, there has to be a political solution. the afghan army, doesn't mean much if afghan politics fall apart. afghan politics have fallen apart several times.
how is the political effort different this time around. -- around? sec. mattis: congressman, having just returned, i noticed sitting around the table from me at my --tings were new commanders new ministers of interior and defense, proven people, people that the nato officers said we fought with these guys, it is great to have them in place. to the coredown level commanders, these are all proven young officers who have grown up in this fight. they are not holdovers. not kept around from past wars. there is also an effort underway right now to remove many of the officers who are over the hill and replace them, give the young officers an opportunity to come up to levels they demonstrated they can handle this fight.
aat can only reflect political reality, because of the nature of that society right now. as you know, it is a society that has been shaken since the time of the soviet invasion. group that now recognizes they basically have one last shot at this. mr. secretary, you have detailed that bringing our advisors to a lower level will help on the military front. it sounds like the same is needed on the political front. i see a lot of nodding heads. how confident are you that our state department can do that? sec. mattis: congressman, it is not only our state department. the nato civilian representative there and his deputy, and the other diplomats in the town of our framework nations, but also india, they are all working
along these lines. that,oulton: i understand but how confident are you our state department can provide that support? we. mattis: i am confident get our city people out there. ambassador bass is coming out of turkey -- >> a lot of positions are on children now. the speciald representative for afghanistan and pakistan. is that helping? effectttis: that has no on the intent you are trying to highlight. that is the ambassador and his staff, that is who does the heavy lifting of that job. we also have other u.s. military officers in their ministries to build bridges across the various ministry to get the political concentration of effort -- unity of effort we need. are we actually pushing advisors down in the same way we are doing on the military side of thing?
sec. mattis: i'm confident we will. we are currently doing that with officers in the ministry of defense and intel agencies. as far as the other ones go, let me ask the chairman. he has been there as the commander on the ground in the past, but i will tell you i have seen a new level of collaboration between chief executive of dual a and lla andnt ghani -- abdu president ghani in the past. rep. moulton: the bar is pretty low, but i appreciate that. gen. dunford: it is a fair question and as part of the strategy the state department is tasked with coming up with a more robust approach. i would emphasize one point and -- when we knew moving forward we were going to have a new strategy, we needed strong leadership in kabul. has incredible
background experience in afghanistan and many of us spoke with him and encouraged him to accept this service, which is what he has done. he has upset did this service for three years. i think we have the right diplomat going to kabul. on the advisory front political level been pushed down where it needs to be? not yet, and that has to happen for us to be successful and i know that is secretary tillerson's intent. chairman and mr. gentlemen, we are so glad you are at the helm of this important time in history and in the life of afghanistan. i am so encouraged by a lot of the changes you are instigating. i think it makes so much sense to have the strategy be conditioned based and not number based. i am also encouraged by what you
shared earlier about making sure invested wisely. our subcommittee held a hearing recently dealing with the allegation that the afghanistan's bought and wasted $28 million dealing with their camouflage they chose for their uniforms and i was so encouraged at your memo, mr. secretary, afterwards direct and that we bring to light wasteful practices and make sure everything is looked at and there is no waste. ask a question about another area and that deals with the assessment of the afghan security forces. general dunford, we talked about 300,000 troops there now and a lot of changes taking place. inn i went to afghanistan 2011, i was struck by what i learned there about the anderence in perceptions expectations of our military. when we first went over there,
at the level of their education, their ability, and we thought we would begin training at this point but the reality was we had to go back here because of even the literacy rate was such that we had to start teaching them basic literacy before we could get them to this point and move forward. you said we are going to expand close air support. could you give a general assessment of where you think they are in there capabilities? where is their literacy rate now? where are the shortfalls in their capabilities? where are they in building the air force and the close air support that we feel they need? gen. dunford: sure, congresswoman. the me start with the air force. when you were there in 2011, they had a couple of small hera of fiveopters, a total mi 35's on any given day, they might have gotten one in the air.
wing a 29,-fixed they have fielded on the order 30's, small helicopters. uh 60's werer delivered. between now and the next seven years, we will have transitioned to a uh 60 model helicopter, combined with the fixed wing aircraft, the a 29 as well as the mv 530, and there is one smaller reconnaissance called a c 208. they have a pretty robust air force that is building right now. the most promising area of the air force has been the special wing that supports special operations. the profiles that those pilots as flying,
sophisticated as the profiles we fly on a routine basis. that is the result of many years of training. this is the cream of the crop, room for is improvement in the afghan air force. andyou talk about 2011 having an accurate assessment of afghan capability, one of the things the secretary has directed is our advisors are going to be the most competent, most experienced individuals we have. what you will see are people who have been over there before going back again on a repaid acis. i would -- repeated basis. i expect advisors going back over there will have experience in afghanistan in the past. we will be starting in appreciations of cultures and weaknesses, and be better advisors. one area i think is significantly different than 2011 is leadership, in 2011 we were still dealing with the residual of a soviet informed
army. that type of leadership. this summer alone, the average age of the core of commanders was reduced to years between last spring and right now. he replaced five of the six core commanders and so we really are now dealing with a group of individuals who have been trained, organized and equipped and influenced by u.s. and coalition forces for over a decade. in young lieutenants you met 2011, those are now the commanders and brigade commanders. that is something that takes a long time. we say it takes 25 years to grow a division commander. but the investment we have made bringing the afghans to our schools and training them over here are resulting in leaders being in the right place. rep. hartzler: very encouraging. thank you. i yield back. you, mr. chairman.
secretary mattis, general dunford, thank you for being here. secretary mattis, you talked about the new strategy, the are four plus s. you also buy into that strategy? is that something you support? sec. mattis: absolutely. >> so you -- can you tell me -- i understood your description of what regional rising is, but can you tell me what reconciliation means? sec. mattis: i can. to stopban decides killing their fellow countrymen and women and sit down as some of the small groups have and start working with the afghan government. they have grievances, then bring them up through the normal processes that countries have resolved grievances. no need for violence, no need to support transnational
terrorists. >> do we have to go through each of the r's to get to the s. not.mattis: no, it is it is a great question. we are going to fight and talk at the same time. already some groups have rocha and with the taliban. since they have lost key leadership, there is an internal fighting going on right now which distracts them from working against the afghan government and against our nato forces, and our afghan forces. this is not going to happen in a sequential, linear way. some of them will peel off early, some will fight to the rugged and, but bottom line is we will fight and talk at the same time. rep. hanabusa: is realign talking about the others -- not talking about our troops. when you talk about realign, you talk about realigning the other terrorist organizations, other groups? talkingtis: we're
realigning our forces to the main effort of bringing nato making two of the afghan forces that have not had advisors before and insuring that the afghan forces are made more capable to provide for their own defense. rep. hanabusa: so the reinforce i think you r-3 said, is that the united states who reinforced by having more troops? sec. mattis: we will bring in more troops to extend the advisors to the other units that the other chairman was saying are not right now getting advisors, but it is also secretary stoltenberg and myself going to other nato and partner nations. nations in europe, partners being like georgia, australia, and have them pick up more of the advisory duty, align more of their troops to advisory duty, as well. rep. hanabusa: though we may not have more boots on the ground so
to speak, we do anticipate having more of our advisors or nato advisors in afghanistan in the future? sec. mattis: yes ma'am. there will be more boots on the ground. we are reinforcing. it is not to take over the fighting. it is not to supplant or substitute for the afghan to make certain that units that never had immediate access to a nato air support, intelligence support, this sort of thing, will have it, making them more effective at fighting. but we are not taking over the fighting. we are in enabling them. rep. hanabusa: in your testimony, you spoke a lot about the taliban and how basically lack of a better description, how the taliban was doing everything so bad and was an yet in the, testimony of the general, he talks about defeating isis and al qaeda in afghanistan and to ensure other terrorist groups
are unable to launch attacks, and he ends with something i think you are talking about with reconciliation, and secretary tillerson has recently outlined his entire effort is to put pressure on the taliban and have them understand they will not win in the battlefield victory, so they will enter an afghan-led peace process to end the conflict. is that the ultimate goal? that we will do away with isis and al qaeda, but the taliban is viewed almost like our future partner? or the partner in peace in afghanistan? sec. mattis: as you know, ma'am, the taliban embraced al qaeda, supported them and refused to break them even after they attacked new york city and washington, d.c. so we go after the taliban as providing the structure, so to speak that other transnational groups have, in fact, used to conduct international attacks.
you know what al qaeda has done, you know what isis has done in the area. but the bottom line is, we are going to go after al qaeda. we are going to go after isis, and if the taliban wants to break with them and stop killing people and rejoin the political process, if we see reconciliation as the way we will end this war. rep. hanabusa: thank you, and i yield back. >> mr. scott. representative scott: gentlemen, thank you for being here. general dunford, you mentioned the a 29 mission. that is in my district. we are happy to have that mission there. i hope you will continue to expand it and i know that mission is being utilized for other countries as well. thank you for your support in mentioning it. talked about this with some others, but on page three of your testimony, you talk about
the decisive point in moving -- or the new approach that will have our most senior advisers lee -- leading at the decisive point in afghan operations. can you give any specific examples of where that has made the difference? gen. dunford: absolutely, congressman. when we went through the analysis, we identified that afghan units that had coalition or u.s. advisors almost invariably were successful. -- the eatpersistent and fight with the afghan forces. that was the case with's pepper -- special operations forces. that has worked well. we have had -- not had the commiserate effort with conventional forces. when we talk about the decisive point, we are talking about continuing to make sure that the
lowest tactical level, this battalion like organization of about 1000 conventional forces, we have persistent and bedded advisors -- and visors that are there when they're in the fight. it has worked with special operations, it has worked in our previous experience before we drew down the force, before 2014 when we had a fairly robust advisory environment with afghan forces. they were successful. why were they successful? we facilitated the delivery of aviation support and continued to help them develop their tactics, techniques and procedures and ability to plan, and helped them mr. there that just ask. theyf which takes time, so were more improved than 2014, but still need advisors in the fight. i do think we have a pretty good body of evidence that this will make a difference. rep. scott: if i may, i know one of the platforms we use in that
indicators, target up to and until a few weeks ago, was proud to support the air force and the recapitalization of that program. i continue to believe we need to recapitalize that program. have concerns about the air force's commitment to the mission at this stage. i look forward to working with both of you to make sure we maintain the capabilities that the j storms platform gives us and i hope the two of you can support the continued recapitalization of that program. with that, i yield the remainder of my time. thank you for your service. thank you, mr. chairman. secretary mattis and general dunford, more than 24,000 u.s. troops have been lost. , allthan 20,000 wounded
with the price tag of over $800 billion. i know both of you are all too familiar with these numbers. after 16 years, you are asking the american people to endure ,ore loss of life, more money and without an expiration date. and for what? mattis, i believe in the strength and capability of our military. i believe we have the most powerful military in the world today. however, i do not know if we have the will to fight this war to the end. because i don't think there will ever be an end to this fight against terror. a war that can only be fought with troops. we are fighting against not one, but a number of worldwide networks. the american people are tired. our troops are tired. and our allies are tired. i believe the american people
deserve to know why additional troops are being sent back to afghanistan. secretary mattis, you have to understand i have to be able to go back to my district and explain to my constituents why they are sending their sons and daughters to afghanistan once again. secretary mattis, would you say we know who our enemy is? reading over the lessons learned report by the inspector general report for afghanistan reconstruction, it doesn't seem we knew ourselves or the enemy. for example, we were wasting precious taxpayer money imposing advanced technology to an illiterate and uneducated population without the appropriate training, expecting them to be prepared to fight. report,g to the same the u.s. underappreciated key
strategic level threats including the will and ability of the taliban to continue the supportustain popular for the taliban in afghanistan, pakistan,sanctuary in he afghan government legitimacy and corruption in the national defense and security forces. essentially, we didn't know our enemy. have you considered a strategic level threat this time around, and if so, what are they? congressman, i believe the strategic level threats are the ones we experienced most directly on 9/11. problems in these kinds of areas do not stay in those areas. in a globalized world, they come out. i always askon myself before i walk into the president's office i am going to
recommend that we deploy were they can be killed. --s this contribute to our sufficiently to the well-being we canamerican people, lose people as a result. it has to pass that standard. i think we know very well who this enemy is. it is an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform, he hides behind women and children. i recognize the difficulty of taking the country further into this war. i first landed in afghanistan in , so ier 16 years ago recognize the challenges you bring up about keeping the american people motivated and understanding of what this fight is all about. i believe it is necessary to defend what we believe in and to protect the freedoms we have for the next generation to enjoy.
believe we can ignore this. i think if we leave this region, we leave it at our peril. i think we have a lot of people, even with all the confusion about our strategy over the last several years when we kept talking about leaving, leaving, still stuckut of 50' with us, hoping against hope we would come up with this strategy. we are not alone in this. would be one of the first messages i would bring to your constituents. with all respect to your constituents, they need to know we are not alone in this fight. is it tough? was the society of the afghan people completely shaken apart, torn apart by the soviet invasion? did that open the door for what happened here in terms of the society i think you aptly described, yes. we deal with the ball where it
lies right now, we can't wish it away. rep. carbajal: thank you, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. secretary mattis, i had recent location to visit some of my constituents. we have been serving in this wouldr at walter reed, i share with you their complete confidence in the president and your leadership of the department of defense. in a green onred blue circumstance in which they were attempting to give training advice and assistance to the afghan forces. can you speak to any new strategy that we have, any new tactics that we have to ensure folks who are there rendering assistance on how to perform the mission don't then put themselves in an unnecessary vulnerable situation? this is probably one of the most difficult aspects of this war. we all recognize that treachery
has been part of warfare since the beginning of time, that this aspect is particularly difficult for us to understand or to embrace and it certainly undercuts the sense of commitment if this is what is going to happen. so let's get down to what we are doing about it. invasivea very counterintelligence program in which we vet the people that we .re going to be training numerous people have been dismissed from the service from the afghan service because of it. we also maintain a guardian program where you have guards on our people who are giving classes in the event that the counterintelligence program, like all of them, can't be perfect. we assume that. we also have a very strong support element there in the
afghan government. they recognize that nothing is more corrosive to the support of the american and democratic and otherm europe democracies that are part of our 39 nations than this sort of treachery. it has got our attention. the taliban and continue to try to infiltrate their way into the afghan units and we have been relatively successful at stopping them. chairman, if there is anything i have not answered here, go ahead. gen. dunford: we have a high incidence of these in 2012 and 2013. to the point where i think it is fair to say it threatened the campaign. the measures that secretary mattis outlined were measures were -- that have now matured over time. the counterintelligence, the butning to detect behavior, the thing i believe is the most significant that i reemphasize is comedy afghan leadership owns
this problem and recognize that. they know our ability to provide the kind of training and support they need is based on them making sure we -- our people are secure. our own guardian angels. we also rely on the afghan forces to create an environment where we can get our mission done. in my judgment, the afghan leaders jump in and the reason we have one instances -- some instances, one is significant and the young folks you have visited at walter reed were suffering the consequences driven the have level of these instances down to a low level. we should recognize it as an enemy tactic designed to erode our will and we have to deal with it as such. rep. gaetz: thank you, and i appreciate the extent to which we have highlighted this as a priority with the afghan government, because that is where we will likely get the intelligence we need to minimize this risk.
gotten feedback we have is the deployment cycles people are on can create circumstances where someone has a great relationship with a tribal leader, a partner, but they are out, a new person is in and the confidence you have spoken of eroded by those cycles. is there any tactical change to that going forward in this new strategy? trying tos: we are bring troops back on repeat tours. but that is more of a corporate memory than a personal relationship, and we recognize this challenge. at the same time, we need to keep our troops fresh. it is very wearing, as you know, to be in a combat zone where you keep your guard up all the time. somehow we have to sustain this and we have a military that has got a pretty wide portfolio right now in terms of threats around the world.
so we are trying to maintain a more veteran approach going back in. we are trying to do the kind of things -- we are putting people into areas they understand inherently, even if they don't know that specific village. in some cases, we are able to get that return to the same area again, but that is going to be very challenging as we go forward, so it is more how do we train our forces for it and do the counterintelligence piece that allows for us to be dealing with people who want to work with us? rep. gaetz: thank you, i yield back. : thank youive brown gentlemen for making yourself available to the house armed services committee. several weeks ago, president trump outlined in sketchy format, a three-pronged strategy to afghanistan. about two of you those.
one is time-based, two is a condition based approach and the other is advisers down to brigade levels. this is a preparatory question. does a condition based approach in vision or contemplate -- i am not asking for a time, i am asking for does it contemplate a state where we withdrawal all u.s. forces? sec. mattis: no it does not. it implies bringing people, the number of people we have their down based on the standing up of more capability and the maturing of the afghan forces. there could be american advisers there 10 years from now. maybe a handful compared to today. rep. brown: while the military goal as i understand it is to provide that time and space for the afghan government, the afghan army, to establish itself so we -- it can provide for its
own security, what are the nonmilitary efforts to address the corruption and poor erodingip, the security, the economic stagnation, the minimal foreign investment and the soaring unemployment -- all of which contribute to a climate in which the taliban and other extremist groups can recruit and then conduct their activities. sec. mattis: the corruption is a strategic vulnerability that has to be addressed. president ghani has signed with us a compact of what we are going to do about it. it has to do with control of money. it has to do with who they put into position. there is accountability, they have just put a three-star general in jail, to show you
this is going to the very top. it is not only the little guy being scooped up. there is an accountability there that is going to shift the opportunity for this into a penalty box not an opportunity. we are going to change that. on the eroding security, the offensive actions by the enemy have now been pretty much blunted. they are down to isolated ambushes and ied's. ied's are large, high-profile ied's, but they have been unable to sustain the kind of offensives they had last year where they were able to move in large groups. groups now,large they understand our rules have changed and we will take them out. they have had to fragment and this aggregate more, which means they can't take over the provincial centers. beenress -- they have
unable, unfulfilled, but they said with -- that they said they were going to do. it is not that we are not going to have to increase security there for the afghan people, we will. as far as investment goes, you will see india picking up a larger investment. we are going to other nations about the development investments to try to get them to do more and so far, we have had some success in this. action bye it go into sometime late this winter. we are addressing each of these efforts that you laid out with that we as much as possible can quantify the progress. we may not be able to quantify everything about it. some of it is subjective, but we are trying to quantify what we do in each case so we do not n assumption that things
are going to turn out well. we have to make it turn out well. rep. brown: if i can use the rest of my time to make this statement. i visited with ambassador lauren, and while he has the largest embassy in the world, they are camped out in kabul. you have asked for 4000 plus more soldiers, there are going to brigade level. you are are ready thin with advisers, two levels down you will be stretched that much further. the forcet get protection he needs and while i understand the president's concern about nationbuilding, nobody can help reestablish and regionaltions economies than the united states. our military is the best in training militaries and it is our state department that does diplomacy better than any other nations. i would hope we could see more u.s. involvement in the nonmilitary effort. i yield back.
i want to thank you both for being here. thank you for your leadership. general dunford, you commanded forces in 2014. how has your thinking evolved since then? gen. dunford: to be honest with you, we are going back to the future a little bit. when we did the evaluation in 2014, what we would need in a post .14 advisement -- environment. -- necessary for the afghans to be successful. we talked about the aviation gap , the logistic sustainability that wasn't yet in place, the intelligence capability they would need, and we made a decision to lift off and provide support at the core level and the institutional level. we are now having a conversation that is not dissimilar from the 2014,sation in 2013 and
which is to be successful, we need to have the right kind of advisors at the right place and sufficient aviation capability until the afghani air force came online. i am not sure my thinking has changed significantly so much as we actually now -- and it is read that we do -- but we now have an opportunity to do something today that is the right thing. rep. bacon: thank you, you may have touched on this but with we think in and out, the taliban have nominal control of roughly 40% of afghanistan. is that accurate? gen. dunford: i think the government is clearly in control of somewhere between 60% and 70%, 10 percent is approximately contested. it is less than you described, but that is probably less important than the populated areas.
in that regard, the government is closer to 70% and what the goal is for president ghani is to get to at least 80% of the key populated areas in four years, which i believe is attainable. rep. bacon: that is good to hear. secretary mattis, what would be your assessment if we pulled out want usnistan, as some to do, what do you think would happen within two years? sec. mattis: if we pulled out i think we would benefit the taliban greatly and the taliban have shown that they will permit transnational terrorists, so ergo, basically what we saw on 9/11 i think we could anticipate happening again. rep. bacon: absolutely, the taliban were allied with al qaeda -- would you say they're still allied with al qaeda? i think it is fair to say they
still have those close ties? sec. mattis: absolutely. we have encouraged them to break those ties. our argument when we went in was with al qaeda. we encouraged them than to break with al qaeda. they were not a transnational terrorist group, the taliban themselves. andthey refused to do so they chose to fight. one last question, and her emphasis seems to be on counterinsurgency, also training the afghan forces. what would you say is the percentage of investment being put on nationbuilding versus the counterinsurgency and training elements? sec. mattis: sir, if nationbuilding is written large, having security forces and police forces and intelligence help, they set the conditions for a nation to find its footing. they set the conditions for family to raise children, to go
bringms, to go to jobs, jobs in. in that regard, we are setting the conditions of the afghans to build a nation. in that regard, what are called the donor nations -- everything they have met several times over the year, they have raised money for afghanistan and countries like japan, afghanistan, the united kingdom bring the money in for targeted efforts. whether to build a road or get products to market before they spoil, that sort of thing. we are setting the conditions ar that sort of thing with military campaign, the security campaign we are putting together here. rep. bacon: thank you very much and before i yield, i share your assessment. if we pulled out, we would need -- be back in three years, having to take out the taliban or al qaeda, so i applaud your strategy to keep them out of power.
so thank you. >> mr. panetta. panetta: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, mr. chairman, thank you for being here. i appreciate the opportunity to address you and hear from you and obviously, appreciate your candor on these issues. general dunford, you mentioned counterterrorism in the region in what you are doing. i was wondering, how much of is being responded to with special operations forces? about 8000 inave the world as i have read. what i am hearing over and over is that the forces are stretched too thin. is that true and is that affecting our ability to deal with counterterrorism in afghanistan and are we still -- thehe element of strategy i saw in 2007-2008,
where we were finishing and exploiting, is that being utilized? gen. dunford: yes, that methodology is the same that we used to go after the enemy from a ct perspective. specialsufficient operations forces to do the mission today, but the issue you raise is a concern that we are running them too hard. maybe theses, missions they are performing that could be done by other forces. the secretary about five months ago, right after he came into office, asked us to make sure that as we were doing global force management, everyday looking at combat commanders, we somethingonly if required special operations forces would they go to that force and we looked to back fill certain assignments being filled by 7 -- spec -- special operations with other forces. for instance, this advisory
effort, the vast majority of my advisors that will be going in as a result of the plan approved by the secretary our conventional forces, the army and burning core will provide conventional forces to provide that advisory effort. special operations forces are critical to the counterterrorism fight and also the russia, china, north korea fight as well. getting the balance right, not only from a day-to-day engagement perspective, but making sure they can train against a full range of missions that special operations require is something we are sensitive to. rep. panetta: understood. back in 2008, the federally administered tribal areas seems like the wild west to me. i remember the town of juana, reminded me of the town of tombstone. is it still like that and can we be assured that pakistan is going to patrol and control those areas when it comes to
breeding grounds for terrorists? sec. mattis: as you know, congressman, the federally , theistered tribal area frontier, has a long history of discontent -- would be a polite way of describing it -- but i would also say that since the partition, it is called the federally administered tribal areas for a reason. it is not a state. it is an area that has been very hard for pakistan to maintain the same kind of control it has in settled areas, for example. that said, they have been running -- running some strong operations there. they lost many of their own troops in this fight, and they have just completed one set of operations that moved against the border on several lines of effort, and those obviously had some of the effect of pushing people over into -- the enemy
over there. the chief of army staff from pakistan flew into cabell -- kabul, and this is the first time i heard a visit create some degree of optimism. so we will see. there is reason for us to say there is a new day here. but it is too early for me to come in front of this committee and pronounced that with confidence. i will fly into islamabad soon, after the secretary of state has done so as the lead for our foreign policy, i will fly in and we will continue to try to work with them cross-border operation against what can only be described as our common enemy. we will see if we can make this work this time. rep. panetta: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. banks: secretary mattis, general dunford, thank you for being here. as a war veteran myself, i
represent tens of thousands of americans who have served there that want to know their sacrifice meant something. that is why, secretary mattis, i applaud your work and the change of course in afghanistan is why your change in strategy recently brought me great hope and turn the flopll -- tied and fight the war to win, rather than fight 14 separate one year rules -- wars. i want to focus on the specific $70 billion we have spent in funding. theow we have talked about up.le of stories packed 43 percent of america's military weapons unaccounted for, afghans last -- lost ammo and resources. 28 million dollars wasted on
afghan uniforms. wasted money on payroll, wasted money on construction, you get the point. the list goes on and on. these aren't stories from 10 years ago, these are from the last couple of years. i first question is, i know you have already talked about the lessons learned, but what are we putting in place within the seasticka.f what are we doing to improve the investment we are making in the afghan police and military? gen. dunford: great question. 2011,2, maybe as early as in order to develop afghan capacity, we started to move money to what we called u nbudjet. we gave it to them to manage. at one point, we had 70% of the money that was given to the afghan he forces. we have walked that back. the moneyhan 25% of is administered by the afghan government.
for the 25%, we put in some rigorous conditionality. to make sure we have transparency. president ghani, unlike his predecessor, has allowed us to get into the ministries >> they have been able to check the books, do an audit. i'm confident in telling you that thisllion provides to forces every year, will haveder -- visibility. i will come talk to you about the transparency and accountability we have for those resources. morenk one of the significant ones is that we are now delivering capability and equipment. they weren't quite ready to
execute the entire budget. today moree know than ever, after applying -- supplying vehicles, weapons, uniforms, the give with a one? >> i think that's a constant process of refinement. we bought stryker vehicles. those are being employed right now. they have provided an advantage of the afghan forces over their counterparts. this is a success story. i don't know if you have been back recently, but i would hope you can see the afghan imports in particular. 8.9, relatively simple to fly. back, being able to sustain that effort.
i believe right now the lessons learned over the last few years, what equipment works, what equipment doesn't work, and what we do need to -- improve the accountability of equipment to make procedures and so forth -- they'ren area that designed to address as well. >> i-30 seconds left, i wish i had 30 naked -- 30 minutes. ,hen we talk about rule of law one of the greatest inhibitors -- is thesident president. what are we doing in afghanistan? country ands to returns to his position. >> i think the most important thing is reinforcing positive development in our country, not dealing with these types of those can represent on their own. we are looking at bringing and police trainers -- not from the
u.s., but those countries, so police themselves are more capable of carrying out rule of law. you got to have the right kind of police force, and you've got to have the right kind of work. again, there's nothing easy about it because of what that society has been through. the right thing to do is to reinforce this, keep working against us or disruptive. now, they're trying to work with the afghan government on it. we register loud and clear the .oncern for rule of law we want to get this country on the right track. lex thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you so much for your service.
i traveled to afghanistan april -- logically supporting his idea that we increase our troops by 2000. the troops being used for these purposes, are they being used for and implement a strategy? >> both. obviously, some will be enforced -- advisers who are out there, and certainly we are going to make certain that where we can bring in an army unit coherent, rather than break in it up -- breaking it up and bringing in contract is. anyone whodemning did it. that's not the way we want to go. >> thank you. it's a problem on the afghani side, a set of places where the troops would not take offensive
action for checkpoints. problem on the pakistani side. i met with a practiced any advisor about or months ago. said there were various efforts and ungoverned areas, you affirm that today. does that mean they are moving beyond their checkpoints out of these ungoverned areas? >> it does. areas,s each of the core it doesn't mean everyone is doing that. people -- there are actions and each core area right now. >> are we encouraging them to move into the ungoverned areas on their side of the border? >> we are using them to hold and protect other areas, but at the same time, i was in manohar must thursday, and they certainly have offensive actions underway.
as you know, that's right along the border. >> another major initiative was to get our air force was -- was to get our horse to train there are forced to coordinate better with each other. is that happening? >> congressman, it absolutely is. we talked a lot today but it has reached. we have equally -- and equally robust effort with the afghan the key is -- you just hit on one of the key points today. the ability of the afghan ground forces is key -- is by key length. because we haven't had advisers down there at the level where that kind of coordination takes place, but they haven't matured as fast as we want. one of the primary outcomes we the afghans being more
effective in the ability of what we call integrating combined arms. one thing, most americans don't appreciate the difference with the taliban club med is a completely different type of organization. have the rules of engagement changed, or only for the multinational terrorist organization? >> what has been passed down to the commander is that any group that threatens the afghani government threatens our mission or the coalition can be engaged.
>> they will seek out members of the taliban? >> we will seek out groups or individuals actually threatening the missions or our people. >> i yield back. >> we have now gone through all of the of numbers that are here -- members who were here and have held them longer than jihadist intended. so what i want to do is to see if the remaining members had a 15 seconds question we have not addressed yet? give them a chance to wind it up. ms. cheney, do you have something? 'you do? ok 15 seconds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank both of you to be here with our oversight obligations are reminding us recover own constitutional obligations to maintain the armed forces. but this notion but we're in the
position to the extent there is the agreement that people walk away not to do anything about it. that will be crucial to take this on is something we take seriously and thank you for raising it. >> that was more than 15 seconds but good. >> as we come up again t december we cannot fulfill our constitutional obligations with the dca in place. >> that was more than 15 seconds , but good. >> quickly, how do we avoid empowering those actions that grow up out of the voids often created as the government -- goes faction --
those factions that grow up out of the voids often created by the government? are we at a point that we don't use quantity as the metric as much as quality thinking of the work that has been done, for those that our trained for those -- the women who are being trained for those afghan police , -- where are we going with that? >> so much of what has been discussed today with that open-ended crisis centers around preventing terrorism's to launch attacks against us. the issue is there is a long list of countries around the world the fall as a cynical safe
-- who fall under the category of being a physical safe haven and so what about the internet makes it physical not even to be required for a terrorist to launch an attack on us or our interests. so, how do you justify that open-ended presence both physically and electronically? >> just very quickly with president trump speech he said one of the pillars of the strategy is to take a more aggressive approach to manage our relationship with pakistan. at the same time, the way they -- they are husing the terrorists we are fighting.
our relationship is complicated. that relationship and that is why will introduce legislation to get the intel community to account for that it was proposed in the 2009 policy review. what hat toolstion is, whwa doed dod have at its disposal to cal a baby -- calibrate their relationship in pakistan for that it is helpful rather than harmful to the united states? >> very briefly, to see the -- i do not know if you had a chance to see the saudi embassador's op-ed this morning , the definition of propaganda and fake news. if we're going to be involved did yemen is hawkeye -- and al qaeda but the saudi
ash we will not be involved in this gross human rights violation. >> let me take a first dab if he heand bring the chairmen in if he believes i miss something. as far as the buildup of factions in afghanistan, just as factionshose become part of the political process, we will not get choosy about which ideas can come forward. that is for the afghan people to sort out, but we have seen enough progress and the younger
people are different, based on the education and we will see the afghan people choosing which factions they can support, with quantity we also carry that quality versus quantity. we also carry that forward in that regard. a unit cannot fight will we find there's too many soldiers there is no requirement to be maintained those with the effective leader or units to go with quality not quantity and benin continue to go to the training. obviously, there is a cultural aspect to their service. everywhere inty the world. every nation has its own culture. time, we would not
even be having the discussion about women serving if we were meeting here 10 years ago. so, it's someone a challenge for us, but it's a good challenge to have as we go forward here. concern, the and reason we shifted to a by with and through global approach to terrorism is exactly what we bring up. we could eventually have our troops into so many government -- so many unwanted spaces, so -- so many havens. the way we invest our troops is, and i can show you this in private -- i can show you what it is we do for every troop invested, how many coalition troops we have, how many african troops we have. if you go through somalia, i can
show you what going on there. if you go through the korean peninsula, i can show you 120,000, or whatever it is -- 3 million men south korean army. what we're looking at is broadly across the world, how do we deal with the geographic havens in a with, andcan move by, through others? you make the point of virtual havens, the internet. different problem sets needed different response. in that one, think education is one of the most important against this -- over young people's hopes and dreams for what we've seen in various places. i would just tell you the exchange programs, usaid efforts to keep libraries open, virtual libraries open to take around
it'sin this fight, i think -- i think it ought to be addressed this way. pakistan relations, and what tools do we have. we have diplomatic tools diplomatic installation by more , and more nations, excuse me, they're joining together with secretary corcoran in the crisis isisllersion in their campaign. that spans 69 different nations joined together to fight isis through the world plus the arab league, nato, european union and interpol so we can trace the foreign fighters as they tried to go home or move across boundaries, this sort of thing. all this shows an increasing alliance against terrorism and any nation that would then support it or be seen to provide havens would be running afoul of basically the most powerful economically and diplomatically
militarily powerful nation in the world. we also have economic tools from loan guarantees and working with other countries on what access people have with certain banking tools and this sort of thing.as far as yemen goes, we are engaged in anti-terrorism campaigns only right now , where we work with the others, it is to reduce million casualties and it's to try to drive this or draw this into the un brokered peace negotiation and the civil war there between the hutis and saudi supported hadi government. >> you gave a comprehensive answer to each of those
questions.\ [laughter] we are all tired. >> let me add one final thing back to miss cheney's part and it's how we started, talking about stability. the ability of commitment and stability of funding. in addition to stability, adequacy is also necessary for funding. many of us were pleased to see the president at the un endorsed the level of funding that has already passed the house appropriation and senate authorization bill . working together i think it's essential that we get that across the finish line , so that whether you are the taliban or the russians or the chinese or whoever, you know we are going to end up and defend ourselves with adequate resources to do so. that would be part of our mission as well as working with you so i appreciate that, thank you for being here. i think this was very helpful and the hearing
>> coming up today, a discussion about russian efforts to influence the u.s. and democracy. p.m.starting at 12:20 eastern, here on c-span. california representative linda sanchez is our guest this week on "newsmakers." she calls for new leadership in the democratic party. sanchez: i do think it's time to pass the torch to a new generation of leaders.
it want to be a part of that transition. i want to say that happened. i think we have great members here who don't always get the opportunities that they should. i like to see that change. >> was nancy pelosi one of those caucus leadership spikes right now -- leadership fights are now? >> i don't know. there are a lot of members in our caucus. i just don't know the answer to that. >> i'm saying it's time for generational change, what you are suggesting is win or lose, after next year, time for her to go? >> i don't want to single her out. >> jim clyburn, all three of them? >> i think that it's time to pass the torch and. they are all of the same generation. time whenere comes a you need to have that -- passed
the torch, and i think it's time. >> you can want the entire interview with linda sanchez, the vice chair of the democratic talk -- caucus. she talks about her belief for , and gunnewer members legislation, immigration, and tax reform, sunday at 10:00 a.m. to collect him eastern, here on c-span. dispense 50 capitals tour stopped in kentucky on thursday. next, a conversation with allison -- with kentucky's secretary of state. continues, and joining us now on the new c-span bus is a kentucky secretary of state, alison lundergan grimes. she is a democrat. secretary grimes, what is the rolling of the secretary of tate? guest guest: good morning. it is a pleasure to be here. the role